Bikeemikey Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 The full exercise of God's omnipotence is limited by two basic rules to which He is bound:1. He cannot do the impossible: For instance, according to Mormonism God cannot make himself immaterial, save the fallen human race by mere decree without an atonement, or transform his glorified immortal body into that of a mortal protozoa. 2. He cannot do that which is unrighteous: He cannot condemn the truly penitent follower of Christ to an eternal hell just because He feels like it; He can't deprive intelligences of their free agency without just cause; He can't tempt any of His children to commit sin. While God does have infinite and eternal power, that power can only be exercised according to the eternal laws of mercy, justice and holiness...4 And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall stand before God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—5 If they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection ofdamnation; being on a parallel, the one on the one hand and the other on the other hand, according to the mercy, and the justice, and the holiness which is in Christ, who was before the world began. (3 Nephi 28)Great post!
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 The person I know and refer to as God is the same person you know and refer to as God, and I'm pretty sure we had both gotten to know him before we ever met and talked on this board. So that's something you can put into your scientific journal as evidence he isn't someone who exists only in your own mind. Add to that many other witnesses there are on this board who also know the same person we know, and have also communicated with him to learn the things he has taught each of us.And sure, there are other people we can get to know personally, other than him, and we can each learn what they each have to tell us, but still through it all there is that person we know, independently, and refer to as God. Sorry that isn't scientific evidence.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 The full exercise of God's omnipotence is limited by two basic rules to which He is bound:1. He cannot do the impossible: For instance, according to Mormonism God cannot make himself immaterial, save the fallen human race by mere decree without an atonement, or transform his glorified immortal body into that of a mortal protozoa. 2. He cannot do that which is unrighteous: He cannot condemn the truly penitent follower of Christ to an eternal hell just because He feels like it; He can't deprive intelligences of their free agency without just cause; He can't tempt any of His children to commit sin. While God does have infinite and eternal power, that power can only be exercised according to the eternal laws of mercy, justice and holiness...4 And even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall stand before God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—5 If they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection ofdamnation; being on a parallel, the one on the one hand and the other on the other hand, according to the mercy, and the justice, and the holiness which is in Christ, who was before the world began. (3 Nephi 28) There you go putting limits on omnipotence.
Bikeemikey Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 There you go putting limits on omnipotence.I don't think god is omnipotent.
Rob Osborn Posted February 25, 2014 Author Posted February 25, 2014 There you go putting limits on omnipotence.Whats the alterative- that there is no limit to his power? This would mean he could endlessly defy all law and all comprehension. It would mean he isnt really bound to anything, completely separate from all things, separate from all law and unlimited in power being outside of justice itself.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I don't think god is omnipotent. Scripture says he is.https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=omnipotent
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Whats the alterative- that there is no limit to his power? This would mean he could endlessly defy all law and all comprehension. It would mean he isnt really bound to anything, completely separate from all things, separate from all law and unlimited in power being outside of justice itself. See dictionary.https://www.google.com/search?q=omnipotent+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
teddyaware Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) There you go putting limits on omnipotence. So you can believe in a God who can do what ever He wants, even if what He does is unrighteous, uncharitable and unholy; and I'll continue to believe in a God who's actions are limited to only those that are in accord with truth, charity, holiness, justice, mercy and righteousness. Freedom of conscience is a wonderful thing! Edited February 25, 2014 by teddyaware
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Scripture says he is.https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=omnipotentSo God can create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it? Or not? You lose either way. Even "omnipotence" must be conditioned by the absurd and paradoxical results which stem from failure to understand the limited meaning of the word. Moreover, the languages from which such terminology is translated often do not mean what readers of modern languages imagine. 1
Rob Osborn Posted February 25, 2014 Author Posted February 25, 2014 See dictionary.https://www.google.com/search?q=omnipotent+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sbRidiculous. God cant turn himself into nonexistence- make his matter disappear from the universe. Neither can he make matter appear from nothing.
Bikeemikey Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Scripture says he is.https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=omnipotentWell I'm a scriptural skeptic about all sorts of other things, why not add that to the list.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Well I'm a scriptural skeptic about all sorts of other things, why not add that to the list. I have no problem with God, obviously. I do have problems with people who claim to know what he can and can't do in violation of their own Scriptures.
Ahab Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Sorry that isn't scientific evidence.Yes, anything and everything we experience with our senses is scientific evidence, and your claims to the contrary are false.
Bikeemikey Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Yes, anything and everything we experience with our senses is scientific evidence, and your claims to the contrary are false.There you go again, highlighting your ignorance of the scientific process.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 So God can create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it? Or not? You lose either way. Even "omnipotence" must be conditioned by the absurd and paradoxical results which stem from failure to understand the limited meaning of the word. Moreover, the languages from which such terminology is translated often do not mean what readers of modern languages imagine. I agree it is paradoxical. We have some conflicting statements. IE; The Scriptures including uniquely LDS Canon, claim God is omnipotent. Yet we have mortals putting conditionals that on things God can not do. Something has to give. ME? I prefer to leave questions of God out of my questions of science.
Ahab Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I have no problem with God, obviously. I do have problems with people who claim to know what he can and can't do in violation of their own Scriptures.There is either a reasonable definition of omnipotent which gets around absurd claims that God can do "anything" (period), or whoever said he can do "anything" (period) was wrong.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 ..................................................) Therefore science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. ................................................................... You could not be more wrong, saint.And whether 40% of scientists are theists (or not) is beside the point. Astrophysicists love to search for habitable planets and for god-like creatures in the universe. Even Richard Dawkins gets excited about the prospect of very advanced, god-like beings existing somewhere in the universe -- hastening to add that they would be simply technically advanced and god-like in their mastery over natural law. He and the aforementioned astrophysicists are not interested in the supernatural, even if it could be investigated, which it cannot. Tom Bethell, “Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Search for God.” American Spectator, Nov 8, 2011, online at http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/08/extraterrestrial-intelligence “Many Billions of Rocky Planets in Habitable Zones Around Red Dwarfs in Milky Way,” ScienceDaily, Mar 28, 2012, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120328090937.htm . “Alien Planets Revealed,” NOVA, PBS-TV (DSP/WGBH, 2014), broadcast Jan 28, 2014, online at http://video.pbs.org/video/2365149642/ . “First Planet Found Around Solar Twin in Star Cluster,” ScienceDaily.com, Jan 15, 2014, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140115075402.htm . “Four unknown galaxy clusters containing thousands of galaxies discovered 10 billion light years from Earth,” ScienceDaily.com, Feb 12, 2014, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140212082406.htm .
Ahab Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) There you go again, highlighting your ignorance of the scientific process.Nope, but you could try to explain why you think my understanding of the scientific method is wrong. Scientific claims don't even need to be true to be called science or scientific, as is evident when they correct their false claims. Edited February 25, 2014 by Ahab
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Yes, anything and everything we experience with our senses is scientific evidence, and your claims to the contrary are false.You obviously didn't look at the link I posted. That is not me. Dr. Tyson is a recognized astrophysicist. If you want science go to a scientist. If you don't, go to someone else. No it is not. Rob inadvertently stumbled on that basic fact. Human senses are the lowest form of scientific evidence there is. IE; I see a sunrise and a sunset. The sun never literally sets. The earth revolves. We, individually, are merely not facing the sun during sometime in that revolution. .
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 There is either a reasonable definition of omnipotent which gets around absurd claims that God can do "anything" (period), or whoever said he can do "anything" (period) was wrong. See dictionary definition of omnipotent. Disagree with the dictionary all you want.
Ahab Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Human senses are the lowest form of scientific evidence there is. IE; I see a sunrise and a sunset. The sun never literally sets. The earth revolves. We, individually, are merely not facing the sun during sometime in that revolution. .Good grief. You're not only corroborating my claim that anything and everything we experience with our senses constitutes scientific evidence, although you call it the lowest form, but you're also failing to realize that we can't experience anything except through our senses. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I agree it is paradoxical. We have some conflicting statements. IE; The Scriptures including uniquely LDS Canon, claim God is omnipotent. Yet we have mortals putting conditionals that on things God can not do. Something has to give. ME? I prefer to leave questions of God out of my questions of science.Those who come from a strictly Judeo-Christian theological tradition must leave God out of science because He is defined by those theologies as being entirely outside of the universe and time. After all, He created the universe and time, they say. Therefore, He cannot be conditioned by them. Since he is omnipotent and omniscient, all His creatures are contingent and an extension of Him. Whatever they do is His fault, by definition. This logical notion has led to a realization that such a God cannot be investigated by science, and that there can be no moral or ethical demands made upon man, because God, the Great First Cause, is ultimately responsible for all actions of organic and inorganic elements of the universe. There is no good, and no evil. There is also no free will. All is predestined by the absolute sovereignty of God. This recognition is now widespread and has lead to Death of God theologies, and to a lack of interest in religion in Europe stemming from such an absurd set of apriori assumptions or axioms. Only sybaritic pleasure-seeking and nihilistic existentialism seem able to fill the void left by this realization. Comes the LDS faith, positing a God who is part of time and the universe, who is finite in some sense, and who is surrounded by coeternal matter and beings. Nothing is contingent, and that God must obey natural law, or He could not be God. Free will is real and based on individual intelligences who are eternal and indestructible. Unless and until you understand this crucial theological difference between the Restoration and its opponents, you will still fail to "get it." 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Good grief. You're not only corroborating my claim that anything and everything we experience with our senses constitutes scientific evidence, although you call it the lowest form, but you're also failing to realize that we can't experience anything except through our senses.The saint needs to read David Hume on how we are prisoners of our senses. 1
teddyaware Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) See dictionary definition of omnipotent. Disagree with the dictionary all you want.I can't help but wonder if some of your comments are tongue in cheek? And who are the Latter-day Saints going to listen to when it comes to a scripturally proper understanding of the word 'omnipotent' -- the dictionary or the Book of Mormon? Why the Book of Mormon of course!22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the claw, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. So according to the Book of Mormon, if God decided to be unjust, as an expression of His omnipotence, He would cease to be God. Therefore there are unalterable limits as to how God can exercise His omnipotent power. Checkmate! Edited February 25, 2014 by teddyaware
Robert F. Smith Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 See dictionary definition of omnipotent. Disagree with the dictionary all you want.You are certainly free to use such terms in any way you wish, absolute on the one hand, or metaphorical on the other. What, for example, do you make of the fact that both pagan Baʿal and Jehovah are termed "Cloud-Rider" (Ps 68:4 [MT 68:5]; cf. Dan 7:13), both dwell in Mt. Safon (Pss 29:3,10, 48:2 [MT 48:3], Isa 14:13), both destroy the great Dragon, Leviathan, or Sea (Ps 74:12-15, Isa 27:1, 51:9 [∥II Ne 8:9], Job 7:12), and both arrive in a great thunderstorm, with seven thunders or seven lightnings (Ps 29:3-9; KTU 1.101.3-4 = Ugaritica V.3.3-4), etc.? These are obviously figurative or metaphorical descriptions or epithets, and are not to be taken literally. Also, how can both Canaanite El and Israelite El be associated with the Bull? In Gen 49:24, God is described in Hebrew as the "Bull of Jacob" (often erroneously translated with the Greek LXX "Mighty One of Jacob"), and we find in Gen 49:25 the traditional (El) Shaddai "Mountain-One," is rendered "Almighty" in the KJV, while in many other locations in the OT it is translated through Greek Pantokrator "Almighty." These are all cases of ignorance of the Hebrew combined with theological apriorism (II Sam 5:10, 7:8,25,27, I Ki 19:10, Jer 3:19). 1
Recommended Posts